O R D
E R By order dated August
20,1996, we allowed
the appeal of the respondent Union of India and set aside the order of the
Tribunal granting the benefit of pension to the applicant.

The
applicant has filed the present applications to recall the order. It is stated
therein that since he has not well, could not appear on 13.8.1996 when the
appeal was initially listed and intimation to that effect was given by him. The
matter was thereafter listed on 20.8.1996 but he was not be present on that
date and the matter was disposed of ex parte. When the petitioner choses to
appear in person , the Court is not expected to give an intimation to the parties
of the date of adjournment. Once intimation is given, it is the duty of the
party to make note of the subsequent dates and make himself available and
appear when the case is called out. However, we took care to satisfy ourselves
of the grievance of the applicant by calling upon the respondents to explain us
the position.

The
controversy is no longer res integra. The entitlement to the benefit of the
pension was considered by this Court in Krishna Kumar vs. Union of India &
Ors. [AIR 1990 SC 1782-JT 1990 (3) SC 173]. Following that judgment, this Court
had set aside the order of the Tribunal. It is seen that the Claim of the
petitioner is that he did not have knowledge of the extension of the last date
for giving the option. It is his case that he retired in November 30,1975 and he did not have any opportunity
of knowing the extended date. That is falsified by the record. For the first
time, it was extended upto January 1,1973.
It was further extended upto July 23,1974;
thereafter, upto June
25,1975, June, 30, 1976, January 3,1978 and the last of the extensions was till December 31,1978. While he was in service, he had
the opportunity to register the option on three occasions, namely, on January 1,1973, July 23, 1974 and June
25,1975. He did not
exercise the option at that time. The option was as regards principle of
gratuity. He thought that would be a better principle advantageous to him. He
withdrew the retinal benefits. Later, when the pension scheme was sought to be
given to several persons, he came forward at a belated stage saying that he was
not in know of extension till 1991. When others were given benefit by the
Tribunal, he came to file the petition. In view of the aforesaid facts, it is
hard to believe that he had no notice of exercising the option for the pensionary
benefits. Under these circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the order
passed by this Court for recalling the order.